IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10362

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

UNDRAL DEWAYNE JERNIGAN,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-224-1

Before BARKSDALE, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Undral Dewayne Jernigan contests his 110-month sentence, imposed 

following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1), 924 (a)(2). He contends the district court 

clearly erred in applying a four-level Sentencing Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) 

enhancement, based on finding the firearm was found in close proximity to 

drugs and drug paraphernalia during a drug-trafficking offense. He 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10362 Document: 00514761417 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2018
No. 18-10362

2

maintains: he was not involved in such an offense; and the firearm did not 

facilitate his drug possession. 

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, the 

district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly 

calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 48–51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved 

objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (5th Cir. 2009). In that respect, for issues 

preserved in district court, its application of the Guidelines is de novo; its 

factual findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 

517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). “In determining whether a Guidelines 

enhancement applies, the district court is allowed to draw reasonable 

inferences from the facts, and these inferences are fact findings reviewed for 

clear error.” United States v. Coleman, 609 F.3d 699, 708 (5th Cir. 2010)

(citation omitted). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible 

in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 146

(5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) provides for a four-level increase if defendant 

“used or possessed any firearm . . . in connection with another felony offense”. 

Guideline § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). The enhancement applies “if the firearm . . . 

facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating, another felony offense”. 

Guideline § 2K2.1, cmt. n.14(A). “‘[I]n the case of a drug trafficking offense in 

which a firearm is found in close proximity to drugs, drug-manufacturing 

materials, or drug paraphernalia’ the enhancement automatically applies 

because the Sentencing Commission has concluded that ‘the presence of the 

firearm has the potential of facilitating’ these types of offenses”. United States 

 Case: 18-10362 Document: 00514761417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2018
No. 18-10362

3

v. Jeffries, 587 F.3d 690, 692 (5th Cir. 2009) (emphasis omitted) (quoting 

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(B)(ii)). 

Jernigan disputes the district court’s conclusion he was engaged in a 

drug-trafficking offense based on the evidence presented at sentencing. At the 

time of his arrest, Jernigan was in possession of a revolver, 22.4 grams of 

heroin, synthetic marijuana (K-2), several plastic bags, and a bottle labeled 

Mannitol, a known cutting agent used in the manufacture and delivery of 

narcotics. A law-enforcement agent testified at sentencing that the heroin was 

worth approximately $800 to $900. Jernigan had an extensive criminal 

history, including a prior conviction for drug distribution, and admitted to

dealing drugs in the past. Further, Jernigan had been unemployed for over a 

month at the time of his arrest. It is not implausible, in the light of the record 

as a whole, that Jernigan intended to distribute the heroin he possessed. See 

Alcantar, 733 F.3d at 146–48. Therefore, the court did not clearly err in 

applying the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement because the preponderance of the 

evidence supports the conclusion Jernigan was engaged in drug trafficking. 

United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-10362 Document: 00514761417 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/14/2018